i ordered thu amazon the Wheelock's 6th edition paperback textbook along with the workbook and got free shipping (yippee)

also last night i downloaded the complete audio from the official wheelock's audio page. hopefully this will help to make sure i'm pronouncing classical Latin correctly. the zip file contained mp3 files of Mark Miner pronouncing all the vocabulary words for each chapter.

so right now i'm reading from a library copy of Wheelock's until my amazon package arrives.

just finished reading the preface and today will work on pronunciation in the introduction and also survey the text.

well i recieved my brand new shiny wheelock 6th edition with workbook last night from amazon (i love that company better than ebay)

in the last month or so i've been putting alot of effort in reading up on latin and finding which way to "plow". so i'm going to take the Wheelock lessons slow at first. my initial plan is to finish a chapter a week and see how that goes since i don't really have a college teacher to lead.

so far, i've had a little confusion on the Latin alphabet because the text does not plainly establish what letters are contained in latin, and which english letters are missing , from reading in the introduction i constructed the Latin alphabet.

classically, it sounds good so far.
Good luck with your studies. Just remember to spend at least 30 minutes a day in your studies and you'll be fine. consistency is the key. and ask any question you need to. there are some enlightened cats here who are more than willing to help you.

if someone might happen to read this please correct me if you see something wrong with my Latin alphabet.

If you omit J because I and J are the same letter, then you should look into U and V, which many here would argue are the same letter, keeping capital V and lower-case u as letters in the Latin alphabet and omitting their counterparts. This may just create more problems for you, though, since Wheelock uses them as if they were different letters.

(See this post for an example of one of the many conversations that have been had about this topic here).

Gar, I don't know why everyone loved D's post. He was as ignorant and misleading on that as usual. The "u" wasn't attested. It was a v written with a smoother style. They did that with every letter. They didn't have abcdefghijklmnopqrstxyz either. It didn't exist then. The "u" doesn't have it's origins back then, as he implied. It was a v, just as they inscribed it, but written with sloppy handwriting. Go check for yourself the ancient papyri and see if you can find g. It ain't there. It's modern convention. It's all modern convention. "Historical precedent" - yeah right. Nothing typed is ever going to be close to historical precedent, since they didn't even have a press yet. How can you guys buy into that pseudo-intellectual bullshit?

i believe the latter suggestion to be true, FrogFace. Romans didn't have our cool system of writing with dual forms for letters and punctuation and distinction between certain vowels and their consonantal counterparts.

Chris Weimer wrote:Gar, I don't know why everyone loved D's post. He was as ignorant and misleading on that as usual. The "u" wasn't attested. It was a v written with a smoother style. They did that with every letter. They didn't have abcdefghijklmnopqrstxyz either. It didn't exist then. The "u" doesn't have it's origins back then, as he implied. It was a v, just as they inscribed it, but written with sloppy handwriting. Go check for yourself the ancient papyri and see if you can find g. It ain't there. It's modern convention. It's all modern convention. "Historical precedent" - yeah right. Nothing typed is ever going to be close to historical precedent, since they didn't even have a press yet. How can you guys buy into that pseudo-intellectual bullshit?

No, not G, but g. whiteoctave's point was that u could be found in the ancient manuscripts. I called bullshit. U was merely a sloppy way of writing the letter, in exemplo optimo, carved by the order of the greatest of Romans, V. Whiteoctave tried to appeal to historical precedent - what he missed was that he's so far gone from historical precedent that it's pathetic and a poor appeal in vanu. We can't type as the Romans did, for one there wasn't a uniform way of "typing" back then, and for two, modern standards prevent it. We're not ancient Roman, this board isn't full of ancient Romans, and except for wanting to purposefully imitate them, we don't write like them. Thus his entire argument for why we should write u and not v is moot - personal preference, and not anything "historical".

ok it's the beginning of week two of my journey into learning Latin with Wheelocks. i'm still on chapter 1.

right now i think i'm going to spend the rest of march getting familiarized with the textbook and wookbook.

my goal is to have an effective method of study using the textbook and workbook at 30-45 minute sessions mon-fri.

also i'm using Hodges's Harbrace english handbook in conjuntion with the grammical concepts and it works well with wheelocks so far. This gives a second source for insight hopefully leading into a solid understanding of rhetoric grammar.

FrogFace wrote:also i'm using Hodges's Harbrace english handbook in conjuntion with the grammical concepts and it works well with wheelocks so far. This gives a second source for insight hopefully leading into a solid understanding of rhetoric grammar.

A very excellent idea and book. All the best to you with your method...sounds like a great plan to me.